Who Will Murder You?

With the increasing popularity and legality of concealed gun permits, there has been a common thread among gun control groups. They say that more concealed gun permits would bring “blood in the streets.”

If you enjoyed reading about "Who Will Murder You?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Carl N. Brown

December 13, 2013, 06:23 PM

Who Will Murder You?
Probably not a carry permit holder.

Prior to the passage of shall-issue right-to-carry in 1987, there was a vigorous debate in the Florida legislature. Opponents of the law claimed that a carry law would turn the Sunshine State into the "Gunshine State". It was a cute jingle, used ever since by Brady Campaign in their attacks on Florida, but their dire predictions never materialized. Murder rates started dropping immediately after the passage of the law, prompting one of the chief opponents, Rep. Ron Silver, to admit that he had been wrong about concealed carry.

Such was the case in Texas, as well. One of the chief opponents in the Lone Star State was Senior Cpl. Glenn White, who was president of the Dallas Police Association. White lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because he thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. Senior Cpl. White admitted to the Dallas Morning News: "All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert."

Another was Harris County prosecutor John Holmes who wrote to Jerry Patterson (author of 1996 Texas Senate Bill 60 that became the Texas Concealed Handgun Law) years after: "As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed state-wide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless."

In 2013 District Attorney Joshua Marquis in Oregon admitted concerning Oregon's shall-issue right-to-carry handgun license: "I thought it would be a disaster. I was wrong. Based on my experience, crimes by CHL holders are very rare and are certainly less than in the general population. Guns are still a very emotional issue for many, but CHL holders have not been a public safety problem."

orionengnr

December 13, 2013, 06:50 PM

Carl--
Great post.
I'll have to bookmark it, as I may have to forward that to some people some day...with your permission.

barnbwt

December 13, 2013, 07:42 PM

Wow, talk about a headline! You should apply for work at any of our finest newsmedia establishments ;)

FWIW, I plan on not being murdered :D.

Seems to me that the most perennial skeptics of armed citizens are appointed police chiefs/captains (whatever the rank that reports to an elected executive at the city level or higher is). Seems to me that we could neuter a large contingent of anti leadership in the big cities by agitating for city-level or even borough-level police leadership to be elected like most sheriffs (or am I confusing causality with symptoms again? ;) ). The "power to the people" message would play quite nicely in these densely populated areas, too.

TCB

Carl N. Brown

December 13, 2013, 08:22 PM

Back in the 1970s, rank and file cops persuaded me, a sporting purposes Fuddite, that having a gun for self-defense was a good idea. I don't know what it is with upper rank big city cop officials; maybe there's mercury or lead leaking from all that brass on their lapels affecting their brains.

btg3

December 13, 2013, 08:49 PM

"All the horror stories I thought would come to pass..."
"I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens..."
"I thought it would be a disaster..."

These quotes typify the need to educate folks. Too much influence being wielded on the basis of opinion and feelings when factual, pertinent information is available.

Deltaboy

December 13, 2013, 11:39 PM

We found out that it didn't happen like the Left side it would.

Archie

December 14, 2013, 12:47 AM

Probably some one who knows me. However, that includes 'knowing' me by repute or affiliation.

I can't find the 'stats' information right now, but the overwhelming majority of murders - probably homicides as well - in the U. S. are committed by people who are known to one another. The characteristic applies to firearms as well as blunt instruments.

Think about it. Who would want to kill one, other than someone who 'knows' one? Who else does one infuriate enough?

Yes, there are some 'stranger' murders, but they are the minority.

However, 'known to the victim' includes relationships like family, friends, business associates, gang affiliation or rival gang affiliation (not many of those here I trust) and so forth. Not to mention the various law enforcement officers killed because the killer 'knows them to be' in law enforcement. This last extends also to elected and appointed government officials.

Apparently it's not so common. I've been divorced three times and none of them have killed me. Just for the record, nor have I killed or attempted to kill any of them. (Did it ever cross my mind? Uh - I don't remember. No more questions.)

Be nice to family and friends. Even if one cannot always accommodate them, refuse them with tact. Disagreements? Of course. Be nice anyway.

Even if the short article referenced was somewhat unbiased, the link it referenced from "Violence Policy Center" sure was an attack on all concealed carry with an emphasis on Florida.

http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/70280587.html
...
“Florida's deeply flawed concealed handgun permit system is an abject failure and urgently needs to be strengthened, if not abolished,” said Scott Vogel, communications director for Freedom States Alliance, a national organization that supports grassroots organizations and advocates working to prevent gun violence, which assisted in releasing today's study. “Florida's failed system allowing the carrying of hidden and loaded handguns in public weakens public safety and threatens police. No other state comes close to the numbers of concealed handgun permit holders involved in lethal shootings.”

Looking more at "Violence Policy Center", they are focused on getting rid of all concealed carry. They even have a "concealed carry killers" section on their webpage. Here is the link containing their anti-gun views. ->>> http://www.vpc.org

chuck

hso

December 14, 2013, 10:02 AM

Let's stay focused on the narrow aspect of the topic - people intentionally killed with firearms and stay away from accidental and negligence deaths (that's grist for another topic someone should post).

The use of the term "Murder" hyperbole, but it is uncomfortable to lump us in with murders. Yes, there have been murders committed by people with CCWs, but they're a tiny group.

As in most things the RATE of deaths is more telling than the gross numbers if you're talking about "likelihood" of something happening (obviously 0 events in a group means a low potential).

WE have to be very careful with this. LEOs are expected to be exposed to a much higher rate of violence than the general population of their community. Much much higher than the CCW holder who isn't expected to "go looking for trouble". Be prepared to point out that these are dispassionate statistics and only intended to show that the Antis are lying to the public about the dangers of CCW. These are just statistics to back up what we've known, "BLOOD IN THE STREETS" claims by Antis have never proven out".

What do we do with the information above? How do we distribute it and use it to counter the Antis? IOW, what's our plan to use these facts?

SC Shooter

December 14, 2013, 11:07 AM

It's not enough to be merely armed with a weapon. We need to be armed with the facts to adequately debate the issue. Thanks for sharing this.

steelerdude99

December 14, 2013, 12:25 PM

Even if the short article referenced was somewhat unbiased, the link it referenced from "Violence Policy Center" sure was an attack on all concealed carry with an emphasis on Florida.

http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/70280587.html
...
chuck

Also in that Violence Policy Center (aka VPC) link is an attempt to make readers think the numbers are higher by stating that they don't actually get data from the police as to who is and is not a permit holder.

Because most state systems that allow the carrying of concealed handguns in public by private citizens release little data about crimes committed by permit holders, the VPC reviews and tallies concealed handgun permit holder killings as reported by news outlets. It is likely that the actual number of fatal criminal incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders is far higher.

On the other hand as we are comparing police who are convicted of murder as compared to CCW holders convicted of murder, what about police who not caught and convicted? Convicting an officer for wrong doing is harder than a non-officer. Therefore, I would argue that police are "more likely" to be able "pull off" a murder in their non-duty lives and make it not look like it's not a murder.

In the first case below a murder was allegedly committed by a former Northern Virgina deputy who shot a drug suspect. He is on now on trial for murder.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=274159

In these other two other cases in Washington DC, they are police who are involved in criminal activity. The criminal activity they are involved in is not murder, BUT I see no reason to think that if given to opportunity to continue that criminal activity or be arrested, that murder would not considered.

This last one is not murder; it's prostitution. This case is only semi-related as I argue that if this guy could foresee his his arrest ... and IF the arrest was based on just one person's testimony, there would be no arrest.

Folks, HSO has hit on just the thing -- gun deaths do not equal murders. Of the approximately 31,000 firearm deaths in the US per year, more than half are suicides, and the CDC stats do not further break out how many are justifiable homicides vs murders vs firearm accidents. You need to look at the FBI and other crime stats to really determine how many gun deaths are actually murders/manslaughter (criminal acts) as a subset of the total gun deaths.

Hondo 60

December 15, 2013, 05:59 PM

I think the those who opposed concealed carry thought that criminals would apply for a license.
Wake up! They're criminals! They don't care about the laws.

It's good to hear at least some people are willing to admit they were wrong.

DeadFlies

December 15, 2013, 08:20 PM

I think the those who opposed concealed carry thought that criminals would apply for a license.
Wake up! They're criminals! They don't care about the laws.

It's good to hear at least some people are willing to admit they were wrong.

Actually I think that those who oppose CC thought that it would turn normal, law-abidibg citizens into crazy morons who would solve every petty difference with gunfire.

And yes, it is refreshing to hear them admit fault.

Vern Humphrey

December 15, 2013, 08:35 PM

High ranking police officers work for city politicians. Most city politicians are Democrats, and hence anti-gun. Which explains the gap between working cops and their high-level leaders.

Officers'Wife

December 15, 2013, 09:34 PM

High ranking police officers work for city politicians. Most city politicians are Democrats, and hence anti-gun. Which explains the gap between working cops and their high-level leaders.
Hi HSO,

Interesting premise... Since the county sheriff is an elected position and therefore a politician that would mean every deputy works for a politician as well. Ergo...

Vern Humphrey

December 15, 2013, 10:30 PM

Interesting premise... Since the county sheriff is an elected position and therefore a politician that would mean every deputy works for a politician as well. Ergo...
You're right -- sheriff's departments are political entities.

RetiredUSNChief

December 20, 2013, 12:03 AM

I like the graph, but there are some important issues with it, a couple important ones being:

1. Where are the statistics coming from which represent the bar graphs? Not citing any sources at all, much less credible ones, with an explanation of them means that the chart becomes just another "thing I found on the internet".

2. Are these numbers represented by the graphs "murder" statistics, or some combination of all kinds of violent encounters which led to a death by firearm? There are accidental deaths, suicides, murders, manslaughter, negligence, and (dare I say it) job related deaths (as with police who must necessarily encounter more situations wherein the use of force may be required).

I think, for example, it's not realistic, or fair, to say that one is three times less likely to be killed in a room full of people with CCW permits than police officers if the police officers aren't there in response to, say, a domestic violence dispute or some violent crime. Apples and oranges.

ediogenes

December 22, 2013, 12:13 PM

Actually, considering the source, the chart and data speak for themselves. If a well-known to be leftist, anti-gun organization like the Violence Policy Center releases data that puts legal concealed carriers in a good light, how can one question the validity? Why would they publish something that disputes their claim that concealed carry is dangerous? If you have questions about the data, contact the VPC.

And steelerdude, I don't know about other states, but the Texas Department of Public Safety publishes on its website annual conviction rates for all crimes for the general public and CHL holders, along with all kinds of demographic data. I can't imagine other states withholding such data, not in the age of the internet, but I'm too lazy on a Sunday morning to look for it. Probably the VPC researchers were, too.

steelerdude99

December 22, 2013, 04:00 PM

...
And steelerdude, I don't know about other states, but the Texas Department of Public Safety publishes on its website annual conviction rates for all crimes for the general public and CHL holders, along with all kinds of demographic data. I can't imagine other states withholding such data, not in the age of the internet, but I'm too lazy on a Sunday morning to look for it. Probably the VPC researchers were, too.

The anti-gun VPC is just attempting to undermine a statistic that they don't like. I don't know if my state (VA) publishes crime stats of the general vs. conceal carry populations. As the permit holders names are no longer public records in states like VA, it's harder to get an accurate count by anyone not in state government. Nonetheless, VPC spins it to say (remember, this is VPC not me): "It is likely that the actual number of fatal criminal incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders is far higher.". NOT just higher, "FAR HIGHER".

chuck

Carl N. Brown

December 22, 2013, 05:13 PM

Last time I checked Violence Policy Center had an article by Josh Sugarmann advocating a federal handgun ban. So VPC is a gun ban advocacy group.

Carl N. Brown

December 29, 2013, 02:08 PM

I have seen breakdowns of homicides as 14% stranger, 15% relative or spouse, 34% known to victim by name and the remainder NO relationship established. That almost a third relationship unknown.

The home invader who a relative surprised in her living room one night, and his accomplice who she detained at gun point for arrest, were known in the neighborhood as thieves and as thugs who intimidated victims into silence.

If she had been murdered, and the suspect caught, I guess he would have been one of "known to victim" or "acquantance" murderers. That's hardly the impression VPC wants to make.

Schwing

January 2, 2014, 10:56 AM

Wow, talk about a headline! You should apply for work at any of our finest newsmedia establishments ;)

FWIW, I plan on not being murdered :D.

Seems to me that the most perennial skeptics of armed citizens are appointed police chiefs/captains (whatever the rank that reports to an elected executive at the city level or higher is). Seems to me that we could neuter a large contingent of anti leadership in the big cities by agitating for city-level or even borough-level police leadership to be elected like most sheriffs (or am I confusing causality with symptoms again? ;) ). The "power to the people" message would play quite nicely in these densely populated areas, too.

TCB
The "most law enforcement agree" has been a mantra used by anti's for as long as I can remember. They trot out some big city police chief who is a proponent of whatever the current new "Common sense" gun law is and state that the majority of law enforcement are all for it.

I have worked with (As I.T. support) my county P.D. for about ten years. In my experience, pro 2nd amendment LEOs and anti LEOs seem to follow party lines in the same numbers as any other occupation. I notice the media only seems to be able to see those on what I would consider to be the wrong side of the issue.

JSH1

January 4, 2014, 12:29 AM

Who is most likely to murder you? It depends on who 'You" is. However, unless you are involved in criminal activities, the person most likely to kill you is you. The second most likely person to kill you is your spouse.

Tirod

January 6, 2014, 11:50 PM

Yesterday was the anniversary of John Noveske's death. Yes, it is on topic. Those who have read his last Facebook post know why.

Don't pursue it here. It's not a forum for cranks or conspiracy theorists.

shootingthebreeze

January 9, 2014, 11:42 AM

A CPL carrier will AVOID dangerous areas, AVOID confrontation, and have situational awareness.
Physical self effacing, being "invisible" is the hallmark of CPL holders.
CPL carriers also have a greater respect with the responsibility of carrying a firearm. Not that those who don't have a CPL don't have a respect for firearms. However, carrying one "steps up" that responsibility to a very serious degree.
So I would say that CPL holders are probably the safest people on the streets. And allowing cleared citizens to have a CPL creates doubt in criminal minds-they have no idea who is armed and not thus I would say that crime would go down versus up.
Since I have had a CPL I am way more aware of potential "traps" (like covered garages) and avoid as an example parking my car between two vans or trucks! Common sense and situational awareness will insure that my firearm hopefully is never deployed in a self defense situation.
I think that more women should have CPLs. Women can be targets in a variety a ways to include domestic situations which sadly results in many murders/murder suicides.
CPL holders are the safest on the streets. Who could attempt to kill you? One never knows and I refuse to live in fear that someone may accost me and pull a weapon-chances of that are rare especially if one avoids dangerous areas of town.

mrdeltoid

January 9, 2014, 12:52 PM

I don't know what it is with upper rank big city cop officials; maybe there's mercury or lead leaking from all that brass on their lapels affecting their brains.

Its due to a difference in the nature of the position. Police chiefs are at the service of the mayor and have to play along with politics. Sometimes, as with the chief in my town, a pro-gun chief has to work under an extremely anti-gun mayor.

angrymike

January 12, 2014, 12:07 PM

No one will murder me ! I do not hang around people who would think about such things, and I'm ready for just about anything anywhere else...

Vern Humphrey

January 14, 2014, 01:52 PM

Given that those who say, "only police should have guns" use death statistics as their justification, pointing out that there are other killings that are more numerous is relevant.

Seattleimport

January 14, 2014, 01:58 PM

It's probably media bias, but there sure have been a lot of news stories about legal gun owners killing people who, honestly, shouldn't have been shot.

Here's one from this morning: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html

This is ridiculous. More armed people should follow shootingthebreeze's (and THR's general) advice of de-escalation and avoidance. Fear is a powerful motivator, and frankly we're seeing a lot of frightened people buying and carrying guns. These folks need to be trained to cool down, take the high road, and if at all possible engage Flight instead of Fight.

Killed over popcorn. Jesus Christ.

788Ham

January 14, 2014, 02:16 PM

I live in Boulder County, Colorado, just outside the crazy part of that city. The sheriff is an elected Dem, only reason for that, is so he could get elected. This sheriff is about as PRO GUN Republican as you can get. A good friend, gunsmith I use, said the sheriff once told him, "I'd like to be able to hand these CCW permits out right here in my office if I could, other than the classes and background checks keep me from that." I submitted my app on a Tue. , Oct 15, the next Wed., Oct 23, I had it in hand. I might live in this far Left county, but stay out of its city limits at all costs, I didn't lose anything there !

Vern Humphrey

January 14, 2014, 02:16 PM

It ended with the 43-year-old father shot dead amid the theater seats, and a 71-year-old retired police officer in custody.
Guy 2 was a former police officer, which makes the point of this thread. "Only police should have guns.":(

tepin

January 15, 2014, 04:45 PM

Who will murder you?
If you believe the stats, you are more likely to be murdered by someone you know than by someone you don't know. Being murdered by a LEO or CCW holder happens, but it is so uncommon it probably isn't worth discussing.

Discussing murder rate is somewhat meaningless. Folks should be focused on the aggravated assault rate - which is the rate in which people are *trying* to kill each other. Advances in medical technology and the availability of hospitals is keeping the murder rate artificially low.

Considering CCW prevents 3 million assaults per year w/o needing to fire the gun, I would say the benefit of CCW outweighs the ~11,000 murders per year, most of which are neither CCW nor LEO related.

hso

January 15, 2014, 07:16 PM

See post #10.

Folks, medical malpractice, highway deaths, and any other sort of non-murder homicide are not relevant to the discussion.

ALSO, how is this information going to be put to use in RKBA?

torqem

January 15, 2014, 07:35 PM

you must also count all the "mere" woundings" caused by guns, as well as the property damage, heart attacks, car wrecks, etc, caused by guns. It works both ways, you know. If you are going to count the assaults warded off by guns, you can't leave out the crimes/damage committed with guns, with the exception of murder. Since those numbers DO get adjudicated ( quite often) are you sure that you want to go there? :-) And it's not 3 million, its probably not more than 1 million x per year that guns stop attacks without firing a shot. It does happen, a lot, tho. I've done it myself, several times now.

Mike1234567

January 15, 2014, 07:48 PM

,,,

akodo

January 15, 2014, 10:37 PM

McDonald's is going to murder me.

Getting the numbers out there on really how many people are murdered (not suicide) or killed accidentally by guns in comparison to heart disease would help RKBA imho.

Note, however, that our right to own guns really isn't related to rates of death. If mental heath care was vastly improved so that all types of suicides plummeted, healthy eating became the norm so heart attacks plummeted, and self-driving cars all but eliminated traffic fatalities, I'd still believe in my right to own guns.

However, pointing out the real death rates can redirect an anti.

tepin

January 16, 2014, 11:32 AM

Note, however, that our right to own guns really isn't related to rates of death....

That is exactly right!!!

Pizzapinochle

January 16, 2014, 03:14 PM

McDonald's is going to murder me.

I question your definition of murder....

However, pointing out the real death rates can redirect an anti.

If by "redirect" you mean "distract from the indisputable fact that the #1 method of murder by a HUGE margin over any other method is firearms" then yes, this is a tactic I have seen used many times by pro-gun ppl.

If you get murdered in the US, there is a two to one chance it was with a gun.

Vern Humphrey

January 16, 2014, 05:14 PM

If by "redirect" you mean "distract from the indisputable fact that the #1 method of murder by a HUGE margin over any other method is firearms" then yes, this is a tactic I have seen used many times by pro-gun ppl.
No, by "redirect," we mean "wake up and smell the coffee." Anti-gun people are obsessive, and like most obsessions, there is no logic to it.

torqem

January 16, 2014, 05:48 PM

I just ask them how they figure on getting my gun? :-) Cause I aint giving them up, and I won't wait for Big Bro to come to me, either. I'll go find him first. He's well-proven to be an inept coward, not fond of sleeping while wearing a gas mask, living in a bunker, and traveling in a tank. So it aint like he'll be hard to reach, or "convince" that he's in the wrong part of the world.

Mike1234567

January 16, 2014, 09:41 PM

To the anti-gun wusses: I don't obsess. I know I will eventually die. I have no reason or want to hurt anyone.

But I'll be damned if I'll make it easy for a thug to hurt or kill me for no good reason.

I'll be damned if a nut-case is better armed than me... and they always will be if I'm too afraid to own a firearam.

Be a coward if you want. That's not me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Who Will Murder You?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!